March 7, 2007
"Weather story that's not topping the news"
After receiving our most recent gas bill from National Grid--and picking my wife up off of the floor--I thought back and realized that, "Gee, February was a pretty cold month." Don Surber (Via Glenn Reynolds) calls this the "Weather story that's not topping the news." He links to several stories, here's one example:
It was the coldest February since at least 1989 (18 years) and possibly 1979 for the nation as a whole, and the month is expected to rank between the 8th and 15th coldest in 113 years of national records. National precipitation trended up 134% over last year with snowfall up 60% over last year. Tornadoes and severe weather were also up with 89 during the month vs only 12 last year. Gasoline prices trended up 6% vs last year and were at the highest levels since middle September.As Surber notes, "They have politicized the weather. None of the coldest February stories mention climate." Well, don't forget Don that there is a consensus that says that the earth is getting warmer because of human activity. All the cool--er, warm?--scientists say so.
Please don't tell me you're doing the whole "how come it's so cold if there's global warming" schtick.
The consensus is that, on average, temperatures are getting warmer because of human activity, but the main point of the scientific consensus is that human activity affects the climate. In some areas, in some seasons, that will mean increased temperatures. In some areas, in some seasons, there will be decreases in temperature.
One of the things that advocates (even Gore) concede is that pushing "global warming" as the name for the phenomenon was a mistake, since "global climate change" is more accurate.
Posted by: mrh at March 7, 2007 3:33 PMCall it whatever you want, but the fact remains that all of North America was once a sheet of ice - and now it's not. Maybe it's from the carbon gases emitted from teepees, huh?
Posted by: Jim at March 7, 2007 5:11 PMPlease don't tell me you're going to invoke "consensus" when it comes to global climate change.
whether or not global temperatures are rising is not the debate -- they've been rising since the 18th century. the debate is over what impact humans have on those rising temps, and for that there is no consensus no matter how loudly advocates proclaim there is.
Posted by: johnb at March 7, 2007 5:13 PM
Yeah, actually, I'm going to go ahead and invoke "consensus."
Hope that's OK.
I'm starting to fear that deniers of anthropogenic climate change are in the same rank as deniers of evolution. Don't fear the science!
Posted by: mrh at March 8, 2007 9:12 AMconsensus does not constitute proof...also there is less and less "consensus" all the time.
Allegre's second thoughts
"His break with what he now sees as environmental cant on climate change came in September, in an article entitled "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" in l' Express, the French weekly. His article cited evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro's retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, come from natural causes. "The cause of this climate change is unknown," he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled."
Posted by: tcc3 at March 8, 2007 9:58 AMtcc3, I was responding to johnb.
And, no, consensus does not constitute proof -- that's not how science works.
Posted by: mrh at March 8, 2007 11:47 AMDon't fear the science!
This is strange from somebody who denies scientific evidence that contradicts anthropogenic causes for global climate change. Practice what you preach!
Posted by: smmtheory at March 8, 2007 8:37 PM